Daily Archives: February 24, 2013

South Carolina’s S.92, the NDAA Nullification Act of 2013, has been passed out of committee, but needs to be scheduled for a floor vote in the State Senate to move forward. Bill sponsor Tom Davis made an effort to fast track the bill to passage in the Senate, but that was voted down.

S.92 remains alive – but is going to need an extra push to get out of the Senate and on to the State House. The bill can be viewed here.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Contact your State Senator and politely let him or her know that you’d like to see S.92 come up for a debate and vote in the full Senate – and soon.

2. Please contact Senator John Courson.
Senator Courson has shown some indications of opposition to this bill. A yes vote on it should be a no-brainer for anyone wanting to support the Constitution. But, it’s likely he’s not aware of the importance of the issue to people in his state. Strongly, but very respectfully, inform Senator Courson that “indefinite detention” is not constitutional and you want him to support S.92 because the State of South Carolina should not be participating in unconstitutional actions.

Share this:

HB357, The Second Amendment Preservation Act, to nullify federal gun laws in the State of Pennsylvania has been introduced – and needs your help to move forward.

The bill has been assigned to the House Judiciary Committee. Having a hearing and committee vote scheduled is the first step that’s needed towards passage.

The Tenth Amendment Center requests your immediate help by contacting your state senator to express your support for this legislation. We urge you to CALL and EMAIL. Strongly, but respectfully, inform your representative that you are concerned with federal infringements on the right to bear arms. HB357 can be viewed here.

ACTION ITEMS:

1. Contact the Committee Chair. Politely encourage him to schedule a committee hearing for HB357.

Ron Marisco, Chair
(717) 783-2014

2. Contact the rest of the members of the committee. Make sure they’re aware that support for HB357 is strong. Let them know, respectfully, that you expect to see a YES vote from them on HB357

Numerous times, Fleming explained to members of the committee that the compact was unclear and led states into “unchartered territory” without the benefit of any “solid case law.”

Several of these shortcomings were additionally highlighted in questions put to Fleming by representatives on the committee.

For example, Representative Bruce Wheeler (D-District 10), asked Fleming whether delegates to the con-con created by the Compact for America would be allowed to propose amendments other than the balanced budget amendment that the Compact for America insists would be the only amendment allowed to be deliberated by the convention.

“I don’t know the answer to this,” Fleming responded, once again admitting the weaknesses of the Compact for America.

In 1861, the states held a dry run for an Article V “convention for proposing amendments.”

The event was the Washington Conference Convention or Washington Peace Conference. It was called by the Virginia legislature in January of 1861 in an effort to avert the Civil War. The idea was that the convention would draft and propose one or more constitutional amendments that, if ratified, would weaken extremists in both the North and the South, and thereby save the Union.

This gathering differed from an Article V convention primarily in that it made its proposal to Congress rather than to the states. In most other respects, it was a blueprint for how an Article V convention would conduct itself.

When the convention met in Washington D.C. on February 4, 1861, seven of the eleven states eventually in the Confederacy already had seceded. Of the 26 then remaining in the Union, 21 sent committees (delegations). The conference lasted until February 27, when it proposed a 7-section constitutional amendment.